The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of games that Buddha would not play[edit]

List of games that Buddha would not play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is not notable enough, subject matter could theoretically be merged with the article Brahmajala Sutta, but the content would just not fit anywhere and make that article less focused. Although proposed deletion has been objected to in 2009, standards of Wikipedia have gone up a lot now, so deleting is the best option. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One line in Brahmajala Sutta (Theravada)#Majjhima Sila seems sufficient. The details in this article are excessive minutia. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article is about a specific aspect in the philosophy of Buddha. It is notable because it is referenced in three different independent third party sources. Since the content is too specific to all fit in a merge article, then it should remain a separate article, because the article itself is notable. This article was already considered for deletion in 2009, and albeit wikipedia's standards have become higher in this period, this was the results of the tightening of several specific policies, but not a change in the wikipedia philosophy as a whole. I do not think the specific policies used to keep this article changed in a way that would disqualify this article now. Therefore, the precedent and WP:N are on the side of keep. Emass100 (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Emass100 If you think the article is worth saving, please do the massive re-write it needs. Otherwise the one line in Brahmajala Sutta (Theravada)#Majjhima Sila will be fine. Please also salt for capitalization. ChalkDrawings33 (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't need a massive rewrite. It is a list so it is fine the way it is. The reason for deletion has never been that this article is poorly written, which is not a usually reasoon for deletion, but that the subject is non-notable. The subject was deemed notable nine years ago as per policies that didn't change much since that time. Having this as one line within another text would mean we would lose all the information on this list from our encyclopedia. Emass100 (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To state that the article cites three different independent third party sources, apart from being a phrase filled with redundancies, is also simply misleading. Let's take a look at the three sources:

1. Source 1 is a self-help book from a popular publisher which does not qualify as RS for this subject matter. Furthermore, the books has only three paragraphs on the subject, which are merely anecdotes rather than providing any useful reflection or facts for the article. They do, in fact, not support any of the content in the article.
2. Dialogues of the Buddha by T. W. Rhys-Davids is the translation from which the article is copied. This source contains some linguistic notes, but is not a secondary source: it simply translates the original Pali text.
3. And to make things worse, the third source does not even contain the word Buddha, and contains one brief mention of a Tibetan board game, of which the relation with the subject has not been established and would in fact be considered OR.

With regard to the deletion discussion, I have not been able to trace any 2009 discussion involving Spasemunki, so it is uncertain in what shape or to what extent any discussion took place.

The article is obviously not Wikipedia material. It is and never has been a notable subject in Buddhist studies, contains not a single reliable secondary source, and is not remotely significant enough within the field of Buddhism to be considered notable. It is waste of time for any serious reader of Wikipedia, and should be removed without delay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Edited.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The 2009 discussion was for a proposed deletion rather than AfD- it's on the Talk page. The list of games in the Brahmajala Sutta is mentioned in a few sources that I found without much work- here in a History of Chess, here in an article from the American Chess Bulletin and here in a book about the connection between games and human intelligence. It's also referenced in an article from Vice News on video game addiction among Buddhist monks. Again, I think it's an interesting cultural note from an era of history that there isn't a lot of information about and important to the history of chess and other games. Logically I would say that it belongs as a sub-page of the article on the Sutta if the list is too unwieldy to include in the article, but in the spirit of WP:NOTPAPER I see no reason why this shouldn't stay a keep. It's probably never going to be a huge article but I don't see the harm that you're attributing to it. --Spasemunki (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is nothing but superficial, passing mention of the subject in the sources you cite. There is already a sentence in History of board games mentioning the Buddha's description of board games, and that will suffice. No separate article required.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:One source suggests that this list might be an early mention of 'blind chess,' maybe the first in the literary record. Another points out that the list of games is duplicated in the Vinaya (here, I believe) and in other places in the Digha Nikaya. My argument has always been that there is room for expansion, and given that the Vinaya and other sections of the Digha Nikaya have their own commentaries and secondary sources, and that I found three more sources with a couple minutes with Google, I still see no reason to believe that isn't the case. The argument for deletion is that it isn't significant and that there aren't sources- it was significant enough to repeat several times in the primary source, and is mentioned by at least 4-5 sources on the history of chess or other board games that were found through Google. Sources on daily life in ancient India are hard to come by (one reason why I think it should stay), but I think there are still quite a few commentaries on the Pali suttas that aren't readily available in translation online. One of the nice things about hypertext is that you can provide detail without unduly cluttering a text... hence why I mention WP:NOTPAPER. --Spasemunki (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pending per review per Farang Rak Tham. I've both looked over his review of the sources and done another BEFORE check. His commentary matches - regarding the 3rd, it is possible that it does have some data on the topic, but half a dozen key words that should be language neutral didn't bring anything up. Other sources are generally on controversial games about the Buddha rather than his viewpoint on games.

With regard to ChalkDrawings33: as Emass100 notes a notability dispute isn't contingent on the entry needing to be rewritten. Additionally someone !voting Keep doesn't give them any moral obligation to improve that article. More directly to the reviewing Admin Do Not Salt - nothing has happened to warrant it, and notability is the only grounds for deletion here - good sources are all that would be needed. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a specific part of Buddhist teaching :: Buddha refused to get into the common habit of supposed holy-men of playing games when they should have been praying or meditating. It is mentioned in the book A History of Chess. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's convenience the reference to the (original) actual source of that is here. The author cites the whole translation and then goes on to discuss two of them Nosebagbear (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It is one page with the text which is the same text that Rhys Davids has translated, and one more page of analysis. I don't see how an article can be based on that. Furthermore, this source deals with the history of games, and does not contain much content pertaining to Buddhist doctrine, practice or history.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article has changed since the original listing- I went ahead and incorporated citations and material from the sources that I turned up through Google books, and removed the reference to the questionable self-help book that was being cited. It now has six independent academic sources. There were also two improvement flags that had already been responded to within the text that I removed. I also added several missing categories so that the article is better integrated with related topics. This is a niche topic, but it's been of interest to historians for almost two hundred years, describes a rare window into daily life in ancient India, is factual and clearly sourced, and could potentially be expanded with additional sources that aren't readily available on the web (WP:DEADLINE). If you're !vote was to delete I'd ask you to take a second look. --Spasemunki (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spasemunki - thanks for your edits. Could you find an alternate link for the fourth source (I've marked it as dead), as it takes me to Sutta Central but then is a network error. I'm not sure if this was part of your edits. It certainly has fewer weaknesses - I just need to assess it as having now got enough strengths.

I would strongly advise the other deletes to at least have a look. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link is fixed- just a stray character on the URL. --Spasemunki (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Potential keep -- The merge nom would not do, as it would be merging the specific with the general. The suggested target probably needs to have a sentence added referring to this article. I suspect that the article still needs cleaning up as there are two items 10 and 11 relating to palm leaves. The title sounds trivial, but the content certainly is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.